Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were a bit too politically correct for me, especially the latter. I admit it had a more realistic and politically aware antagonist and premise, but it actually made it less believable. James Bond would have zero involvement in that sort of situation. "Oh no, that guy is extorting people out of money for a valuable resource!". Uh, Britain tends to either not intervene at all.. or befriend villains like that. It was absolutely none of the British government's concern.

I found Quantum of Solace to be the flattest film of the franchise. Not terrible, but it's the only time I've ever finished a Bond film and felt utterly unsatisfied. Seriously, even Die Another Day nourished me more.

Skyfall was more my kinda Bond film. Jingoistic, questionable gender politics and an over the top premise. Evoked a great Connery or Moore film vibe for me. No idea where this hate is coming from. I walked out the cinema feeling like Bond was finally back.

Gaith;8377204
Instead of making up another ridiculous one-off villain a la Silva (ha ha, he's blond and a hacker like Julian Assange, aren't we clever), either go full-on fantasy and return to the Quantum plot, or (even better, in my view) make the next movie [I wrote:

actually [/I]gritty and realistic, as in Bond having to single-handedly infiltrate some really gnarly part of the world, a Pyongyang or Mogadishu or Tehran.

Now that Skyfall wraps things up, they should make a trilogy of films that share a common thread. They should have Craig's Bond discover that Quantum is a modern day SPECTRE (at least imply the relationship via the use of octopus logos), and introduce a brand new character incarnation of Blofeld.

I believe I read that MGM/Sony now own the rights to Kevin Mclory's IP, so Blofeld should be no longer off limits to EON.

Really? Quantum were annoyed that their banker stole their money and never paid it back. MI6 stuck their noses in and that's how this all started.

MI6 was after Le Chiffre because he was a terrorist financier. Their involvement spiraled from there, but they can't ignore the existence of an organization that has infiltrated MI6 itself and killed some of their agents.

__________________
"I'm a white male, age 18 to 49. Everyone listens to me, no matter how dumb my suggestions are!"

The Man With The Golden Gun
The Spy Who Loved Me
Octopussy
A View To A Kill
Moonraker

The Spy Who Loved Me is fucking great.

I thought so at the time - it was probably the first Bond film I saw at the cinema - I was 13 or 14 at the time.

I've seen it several time since and it is obviously the start of Bonds 'ludicrous' phase but, admittedly nowhere near as crap as its follow-up Moonraker.

TSWLM was the start of Bond's ludicrous phase? In many ways I think Dr No was the start of Bond's ludicrous phase, in fact however ridiculous it is to have an oil tanker swallowing submarines and a villain with an underwater base, you have to admit that it's no more (and possibly even less) ridiculous than having a rocket that eats other rockets and a villain with a base inside a hollowed out volcano given that TSWLM is a nominal remake of You Only Live Twice.

People seem to have a blindspot for Connery films though, imagining they were these gritty spy thrillers, when really only From Russia With Love counts. Sure Connery never had anything that reached Moonraker levels of ludicrousness, but take MR out of the equation and are the Connery and Moore films really that dissimilar?

CaptainCanada wrote:

DalekJim wrote:

Really? Quantum were annoyed that their banker stole their money and never paid it back. MI6 stuck their noses in and that's how this all started.

MI6 was after Le Chiffre because he was a terrorist financier. Their involvement spiraled from there, but they can't ignore the existence of an organization that has infiltrated MI6 itself and killed some of their agents.

Yes it is somewhat curious really. Quantum finance terrorism and beyond that they actively attacked MI6, and you can't even argue that it was because MI6 went after Le Chiffre given that clearly Quantum had already infiltrated (at least) the British treasury with Vesper.

Quantum are an enemy state as surely as Red China or the Soviets were, or SPECTRE ever was. The only difference is that they had a scheme more grounded in the real world.

Add to this the fact that they made it personal with what they did to Vesper and by trying to kill M.

Really? Quantum were annoyed that their banker stole their money and never paid it back. MI6 stuck their noses in and that's how this all started.

MI6 was after Le Chiffre because he was a terrorist financier. Their involvement spiraled from there, but they can't ignore the existence of an organization that has infiltrated MI6 itself and killed some of their agents.

Yes it is somewhat curious really. Quantum finance terrorism and beyond that they actively attacked MI6, and you can't even argue that it was because MI6 went after Le Chiffre given that clearly Quantum had already infiltrated (at least) the British treasury with Vesper.

Quantum are an enemy state as surely as Red China or the Soviets were, or SPECTRE ever was. The only difference is that they had a scheme more grounded in the real world.

Add to this the fact that they made it personal with what they did to Vesper and by trying to kill M.

In the book, the terrorist organization was actually SMERSH, which was a Soviet counter-intelligence agency, and Le Chiffre was a financier for the organization. Le Chiffre was gambling with SMERSH's money, and Bond beats him. He is similarly killed by a SMERSH agent for his treachery.

The reason that MI6 was interested in bankrupting Le Chiffre was that he was a known accomplish of SMERSH, and by bankrupting him in this manner they would be crippling their enemies. The film version is similar, except that the film Le Chiffre is more of a banker who will fund any organization, and just so happens to run up against Quantum (who isn't even named in the first film). As far as MI6 was aware, Le Chiffre was funding the war in Madagascar.

In the book, the terrorist organization was actually SMERSH, which was a Soviet counter-intelligence agency, and Le Chiffre was a financier for the organization. Le Chiffre was gambling with SMERSH's money, and Bond beats him. He is similarly killed by a SMERSH agent for his treachery.

.... The film version is similar, except that the film Le Chiffre is more of a banker who will fund any organization, and just so happens to run up against Quantum (who isn't even named in the first film).

Aye, that's the problem with modern action-spy franchises; if not the Soviets, who's bankrolling the villains, and why? The whole notion of Quantum is stupid in the first place - corporations already make record profits by shaping first-world laws; they're not going to make any more by endangering voters' apathy by creating an international criminal cabal even if they could keep it secret, which they couldn't.

Relayer1, I hear you re: the novels, but Craig-Bond doesn't seem at all more than professionally cordial with Craig-era Tanner, and clearly likes but barely knows Felix Leiter. I stand by my statement that Craig-Bond has next to no established character; the writers just coast by on the brand name and tropes, just as they did with Brosnan.

Relayer1, I hear you re: the novels, but Craig-Bond doesn't seem at all more than professionally cordial with Craig-era Tanner, and clearly likes but barely knows Felix Leiter. I stand by my statement that Craig-Bond has next to no established character; the writers just coast by on the brand name and tropes, just as they did with Brosnan.

That's the fault of the screenwriters. Bond has NEVER had a friendly relationship in the films with Tanner. In fact, the films largely treat Tanner as more like M's secretary than a Chief of Staff. In the books, Tanner is probably one of Bond's only friends.

As far as Leiter goes, also a fault of the screenwriters. He was supposed to get more screentime in Quantum of Solace, but his scenes were cut. He doesn't even appear in Skyfall (although granted, none of that film's plot takes Bond to the United States).

As far as criminal organizations, the books also feature SPECTRE, which is an international ring of terrorists. Their goal isn't merely money, it's political power. They're more akin to the traditional mythos behind the Iluminati, a secret organization that hopes to wield power through subversive means. Much like Quantum, if that means cornering the market on natural resources, then that is what they will do. It shouldn't be so much about the money as about the influence over those who have no choice.

I'm hoping that with Moneypenny, Q and Co. all in place now, Bond will be seen developing relationships in the next movie. He is a more human (or at least less invincible) Bond than some of this predecessors, so it would seem to fit...

__________________
Soon oh soon the light, Pass within and soothe this endless night, And wait here for you, Our reason to be here...